Tip jar. This has been a long hard effort ladies and gentlemen. Recommendations would be most appreciated.

Thanks

Big Blue

I can't imagine your comment is directed at my piece, given that I clearly am suggesting that McCaskill would be a poor choice. That said, this notion that Obama needs to pick someone with deep national security credentials or military experience is a complete fallacy. This last thing a presidential candidate wants to do is suggest that his VP is better informed than he is on foreign policy, the one area where the president holds the most power.

Obama would not serve himself well by putting a military man, or long time Washington insider on his ticket. The first would demonstrate that he feels weak on foreign policy, which, given the seismic shifts we seems intent on taking, would be very counterproducitve.

And a VP with years in Washington would undercut his message of change/reform. It's counter-intuitive, I know, but I guarantee is the right assessment.

Or to put it another way, a candidate should re-enforce his strengths, not play to his weaknesses. So what if Obama picks a candidate with loads of experience? Obama's still the one who will be making the decisions. Outside of Dick Cheney, the VP slot has been a mostly worthless position and the American public knows that.

I didn't say Obama should pick a candidate with loads of experience. That would just make it look as if Obama needs training wheels. But he needs to pick someone with more experience than McCaskill.

Vice President Goldilocks -- not too experienced, not too inexperienced -- should, IMO, be a 2nd term governor or former governor.

Nice write-up, and I look forward to your piece on Napolitano. I came to the same conclusion about Sen. McCaskill, but am more favorable toward Janet anyway. I don't know if America would go for her, though..

This is the first installment I've seen, and I will check out the previous entries. Looks like great work, thank you.

...if Obama wants to place a woman on his ticket, he'd be making a grave error to make it anyone other than Hillary Clinton. Of the prominent female candidates profiled so far, it doesn't seem to me that any of them would bring more to the ticket than a Clinton candidacy would. Any other female vice-presidential candidate is probably going to come across as pandering and do little to salve the current breach within the party.

I completely disagree with this statement -- VERY strongly. I think the very NOTION that Obama
"MUST" place Hillary on the ticket, or "MUST" do so if he runs with a woman VP is what the British and the Buckleys call balderdash. First off, especially given her high negatives, lots of baggage (much of which IS her fault even though much of it isn't), and the way she and her campaign have conducted themselves this year, there are probably at least as many people who would argue that it must NOT be Hillary as that it MUST or that it MUST if it is a woman. I am one of those who argue NOT.

Since not all the prospective women have been even evaluated yet (and I think Sebelius is a stronger pick than you suggested -- and I don't think that the polls are very meaningful in a country where only a small proportion would have ever HEARD of her), it seems that it is jumping both the gun and the shark suggest that they don't bring anything to the ticket that HRC cannot bring -- when only ONE other woman has been profiled so far.

First of all, plenty of qualified women bring one IMPORTANT thing to the ticket that Hillary does not -- her high negatives and her baggage and her truly powerful inspiration to Republican and RW voters. But her UNpopularity with the right does not also mean that she is especially popular with the non-Right. Though a variety of polls, some of whom show her running more strongly against McCain than Obama, suggest she would run strongly, she has been in the spotlight, and has not been facing the kind of campaign that the GOP would surely deploy against her -- rather than Obama getting a free ride, Hillary certainly has from the most egregious Swiftboating that would likely come.

At any rate, I would be interested in a candidate bringing some OTHER things to the ticket in addition to what was mentioned above. First, Sebelius, Stabenow (who should be evaluated, in my arrogant opinion) and CA SEN BARBARA BOXER (who I favor) all bring to the ticket that they opposed the Iraq War Resolution all along -- and this is something Obama has at least pointed to as important in the primary campaign. Perhaps, being jaded and "realistic", one could say that this will not matter much to many voters, especially swing voters. But this doesn't capture the uncomfortable media dynamic of this issue being thrown in the face of the Democratic ticket -- all the MORESO due to Obama's highlighting of it in the primaries, in a way that would indeed undermine support for Obama, albeit perhaps not in ways current polls would obviously and fully show. (I also consider a point of principle AS WELL AS realpolitik).

Another thing that Hillary doesn't bring to the ticket is a particularly long resume -- and for that matter, experience running things, as governors have. Barbara Boxer doesn't have the background of an executive, but she has a VERY long and strong resume on foreign policy, with years and years of background on it in the Senate, something Obama is likely to make into an issue, and would have NO trouble using against Hillary Clinton as well as Obama. With Boxer, these pseudo-nonideological arguments are weaker, and McCain would be forced back to the position of arguing that his foreign policy approach (staying in Iraq until we win, is better). With Hillary this would also not be the case.

Barbara Boxer also brings strength on the environment (for a pol), moreso than Hillary Clinton's track record I believe, and she is charismatic. (Indeed, environment was NOT one of the strong suits of the Clinton Administration).

Stabenow in a way might be very charismatic for precisely the reasons that talking heads and wisemen might not think so -- she has a kind of appeal to the working class that Hillary Clinton (who after all is very similar to Barack Obama Obama, both graduates of Northeastern Ivy League colleges AND LAW SCHOOLS) doesn't have.

Boxer is very bright and knowledgeable and capable, so on that score Hillary Clinton does no better than she. Barbara Boxer, although like Hillary Clinton and Sebelius and Napolitano does NOT hail from a swing state, might be significantly MORE helpful in carrying Florida than would Hillary Clinton. The gestalt of the lift she would bring to the ticket, the enthusiasm among women disappointed that Hillary isn't the nominee, and her overall presence rather than lack of charisma, as well as lack of any serious baggage AFAIK should merit attention.

Some may claim she is too liberal, but voters might prefer an overall vision from the candidacy, one that will be tagged as liberal by the Repukes no matter what, with Obama at the top.

Further, the notion that running with a woman running mate would be considered pandering (no doubt RW columnists of the Krauthammer ilk will surely say so) is I think too cynical by half. Those inclined to be cynical ABOUT the Democratic ticket -- sure. But a female candidate who generates real mass enthusiasm, perhaps from different sectors of the population (possibly suburban middle class swing voters for Boxer v. working class urban and suburban for Stabenow -- as a guesstimate) will quickly put that argument into the category of "boomerang". Similarly, the notion that a black AND a woman are 'too many barriers' in one election is really stale coming right out of the oven.

I think a woman with low negatives who NEVER supported the IWR is the way to go ...

I had not seen these before but this is a very cool series! I will be going back and reading through these.

Oh, and the Republicans would have a field day hashing and rehashing all the charges about her husband's nursing homes being run improperly and so forth. They would also go nuts exploiting the arrest of her ex husband for marijuana possession while she was Jackson County Prosecutor in the national media!